Telling a story vs. railroading

[buzz]

Realistically speaking, if you intend to tell any story or run any predesigned adventures at all, there's only so much real choice the players can have. The trick is to maintain the *illusion* of choice, and work your story into the choices they make.

For reference:

Illunsionism
A term for styles where the GM has tight control over the storyline, by a variety of means, and the players do not recognize this control.

Not an inherently bad technique, but potentially problematic. See also, The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast

It's the DM's game...

ShinHakkaider: See?

It's not the DM's game. Without the players, there is no "game." There's just a stack of paper.

EDIT: To be clear: It's everyone's game.

 

[Quasqueton]

I think that's why it's best to never run a single adventure at one time. Seven or more in an initial region of the setting is probably best. An experienced DM could likely run 1 or 2 dozen at the same time, but that takes some skill. Drop some high level adventures hidden deeper in the region an you've got some potential growth for the area. Sketch in the surrounding regions with a pile of yet-to-be-placed adventures on hand and the DM is covered in case the PCs decide to leave. Measure the needs of filling in those regions by how fast the PCs can travel there and the DM knows what directions to fill in for the next session or 2+ sessions away from the current.

My initial response to reading this is that it was meant as a joke. But others have said similar things (just not in as much detail).

The idea that a DM must come to each game session either with two dozen potential adventures, ready to run at the whim of the PCs, or with none at all, ready to make up everything at the whim of the PCs, is absurd.

You either burn out a DM quickly, or you don’t play much RPGs.

There is a difference between a DM preparing (or buying) an adventure, making plot hooks for the specific PCs, and expecting the PCs to go on the adventure, and a DM forcing you to go on an adventure, against the Player’s will, and orchestrating a pre-determined outcome. If you don’t understand that there is a difference, we simply can’t continue a discussion on the subject because our definitions are as different as saying black is white..

Quasqueton

 

[buzz]

Why waste time doing something that isn't going to be fun? Especially when you can have a short discussion with all concerned and make something they will like.

You win the thread.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not the DM's game. Without the players, there is no "game." There's just a stack of paper.

Not much of a game without a DM, though...and as in many ways the DM sets the parameters of the game by choices such as setting, preferences (e.g. low or high magic, little or lots of combat, etc.), and even as basic as what system or edition to use, then in large part it *is* the DM's game. It then becomes, of course, up to said DM to within reason make said game fun for the players, and to take in (as far as possible) only players who will help to make it fun. Never as easy as it sounds...

Lanefan

 

[ShinHakkaider]

My initial response to reading this is that it was meant as a joke. But others have said similar things (just not in as much detail).

The idea that a DM must come to each game session either with two dozen potential adventures, ready to run at the whim of the PCs, or with none at all, ready to make up everything at the whim of the PCs, is absurd.

You either burn out a DM quickly, or you don’t play much RPGs.

There is a difference between a DM preparing (or buying) an adventure, making plot hooks for the specific PCs, and expecting the PCs to go on the adventure, and a DM forcing you to go on an adventure, against the Player’s will, and orchestrating a pre-determined outcome. If you don’t understand that there is a difference, we simply can’t continue a discussion on the subject because our definitions are as different as saying black is white..

Quasqueton

Thank You man. I was in the process of responding to this when I felt the fabric of reality tearing around me and my head about to explode from an extra dose of crazy and stopped writing. You summed up exactly how I felt with your response.

Thanks again.

 

[mcrow]

maybe its just me, but when our group talks about our next game the GM (sometimes the players) suggest a basic plut.

GM: Hey I have an idea for our next game. You know the village your pcs live in during downtime? Well you are comming up the main road, returning from your adventure and you notice a large plume of smoke comming up over the house tops. You notice a column of hummnoid figures moving @ brisk pace up the hill on the other side of town, leaving the area.

Players: Cool. We will find out who they were, and why they did this!


We agree upon the basic idea of the adventure (atleast the begining) as a group. Really, if the players don't buy into the GMs hook it will just make for a bad game anyway. So if you can all agree on a hook, it lessens the chances of railroading. IMO.

 

[rounser]

So, rounser, you are saying that T1-4 (Temple of Elemental Evil), G1-3 (Against the Giants), D1-2 & Q1 (Descent – Demonweb Pits), A1-4 (Slavers), U1-3 (Saltmarsh), etc. are all railroad adventures?

Yes. The vast majority of module series created for pencil and paper D&D are railroads, because you have no real choice as to "what dungeon to sack next". The "next part" of the campaign arc is assumed to be the next slaver module, or the temple after the moathouse, and PCs don't change that. I can't remember whether the Saltmarsh series is slightly more flexible in this regard, but it's still "next dungeon" from memory.

Ironically, one of the best examples of a non-railroad module is Ruins of Adventure, based on the Pool of Radiance computer game. The players (shock, horror) get to choose which city block they're going to raid next, or whether they're going to go attack wilderness lairs, or deliver a package to a nearby fort etc. For D&D modules, this is really unusual - the "next dungeon" is usually non-negotiable.

I think that this is because railroading is so built into pencil and paper D&D in a "you get what you're given" way (just look at this thread), and computer gamers don't put up with such shackles to the same degree in their FRPGs. Why should they? Instead of one DM, a whole bunch of game designers can make their world big and flexible, and with no word count to worry about the amount of material can be exponentially bigger than that in a published module.

What I think you're failing to understand about what I'm getting at Quasqueton is that although railroading isn't ideal, it doesn't necessarily mean there's no fun to be had. My point is that a campaign arc can be improved by not forcing the players in this way, and actually giving them some control over the course of the campaign, although as I've noted earlier this can be a lot more challenging for the DM, and would balloon out word count if done in module form, so generally isn't done...and so things are as they are now.

Railroading also solves a design problem for D&D: What if the PCs go to the Valhingen Graveyard whilst they're too low level to handle it? Ruins of Adventure lets them get thumped until they die or retreat. With the advent of 3E, something like a lock that only a mid-level character could open might help keep lower level PCs out, but arguably this is a "choice killer" of it's own. It's an interesting topic to me, largely because the game seems to sidestep or handwave it.

 

[Kai']

Story vs. Railroading

First, I agree, railroad, along with munchkin, minmaxing, and power-gaming no longer have any specific meaning any more - except as insults.

Second, here is what I do. I too base my campaign off of a story I've created. I have a segment in my house rules called Metagaming & Stupid Actions. It works like this:

IRL we have co-workers. We work as a team. We hire a new person, they make bad choices or stupid actions. We give them a certain number of chances before declaring them completely incompetent.

That said, in my game every player (not character) is allotted two stupid actions... they are allowed to not return the gem to the mob boss baron that will hunt them down and kill them. And, if they choose, we actually act it out. Yes, this becomes tidious for me as a GM... but it humors them. Even better is that each player knows that they have a limit, so they save the last one for a special occassion... that inevitably they hardly ever use. This allows them to get their satisfaction and allows me as a DM a controlable atmosphere with limited changes to my story.

IF a player spends both of their stupid actions, they are no longer allowed to make any decisions and can no longer speak for the party at all... the other players may put a geas on them to fit this if they so choose. However, we all know that it isn't the character, it is the player. The arrangement is that the next time it happens, he will no longer be allowed to game.

 

[Quasqueton]

What I think you're failing to understand about what I'm getting at Quasqueton is that...

...your sense/definition of "railroad" is so sensitively tuned that I can no longer discuss the subject with you. No offense intended, but your point of view on this subject is so "out there" that I can't conceive how you can function in an RPG environment.

Quasqueton

 

[rounser]

...your sense/definition of "railroad" is so sensitively tuned that I can no longer discuss the subject with you. No offense intended, but your point of view on this subject is so "out there" that I can't conceive how you can function in an RPG environment.

I think it's relatively straightforward - the PCs get some in-game choice as to which dungeon to go to next, or which adventure to embark upon next, leading to some control over campaign direction.

If that's too difficult to grasp, or too "finely tuned" for you, then I agree that at least one of us is indeed "out there" on this topic.